Would signing cause a performance hit by an order of magnitude though? Is that expected behavior? If so, then it seems worth it to disable signing from the client, given that this is just a NAS on a LAN, not connected to the Internet. On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:20 PM Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:08:40PM -0400, Seth Goldin wrote: > > I'm actually seeing from the Apple Support Communities thread that this > > might all be due to the fact that OS X 10.11.5 clients are requiring SMB > > signing. Curiously, I noticed that my SMB4.conf file on my FreeBSD server > > didn't even possess a `client signing` flag. Might all this be resolved > if > > I just add a `client signing = auto` flag for the server's SMB4.conf > file, > > so that the OS X client is talking properly to the server? > > No. SMB signing by neccessity slows things down (without crypto > hardware support). If you're complaining about speed then you > might just have to turn it off. Think carefully before doing > that though. >
On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 05:23:29PM +0000, Seth Goldin wrote:> Would signing cause a performance hit by an order of magnitude though? Is > that expected behavior? If so, then it seems worth it to disable signing > from the client, given that this is just a NAS on a LAN, not connected to > the Internet.Possibly. There are many optimizations unsigned SMB can do that signed SMB can't. Try it and see.
I disabled client signing from the client side, via OS X's global nsmb.conf file: https://discussions.apple.com/message/30282470#30282470 The performance was back to over 600 MB/s, as compared to 60 MB/s with signing. It just seems a bit weird to me that Apple, in response to the Badlock bug, would have changed the OS X client default to something with such drastic performance implications, without much notice. My contact at Apple said that the engineers were able to replicate the slow performance on OS X Server as well, so even if they didn't test it with Samba on Linux or FreeBSD servers, they might have just been too hasty in their response to Badlock. I wonder if they had only tested OS X clients with Windows Server. I wonder what that performance looks like, but I don't have access to Windows Server. On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:25 PM Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 05:23:29PM +0000, Seth Goldin wrote: > > Would signing cause a performance hit by an order of magnitude though? Is > > that expected behavior? If so, then it seems worth it to disable signing > > from the client, given that this is just a NAS on a LAN, not connected to > > the Internet. > > Possibly. There are many optimizations unsigned SMB can do > that signed SMB can't. > > Try it and see. >